Filters

Quaker

Quaker

Messages
972
Name
Quaker
Edit My Images
Yes
Would you stick on a ND filter and a Polarising filter if shooting a waterfall aiming for a milky effect?

The reason I mention a polarising filter is to remove glare.

Would this be the "norm"?
 
At a guess yes, but not for getting the "milky effect" this is achieved by use of a longish shutter speed.

The ND would keep some detail in the sky (if present in the shot) and the polariser would remove the glare

(i've never used filters before so could be talking tripe :shrug:)
 
I've only taken a few waterfall shots so i'm not 100% on the way most people do it but i find as andy said if there's not much sky involved i'd just stick to the polariser, it works for me but again it depends on the circumstances and what kind of shot your after.
If it's a fairly dark environment you can leave both off and get the milky water with shutter speed again as andy pointed out.
 
A CPL will reduce the amount of light entering the lens by a couple of stops anyway, so depending on how bright it is you might not need the ND filter as well.

Rovers_Andy said:
The ND would keep some detail in the sky
Click to expand...

You're thinking of an ND Grad filter, dark at the top fading to clear at the bottom.
Plain ND filters are completely dark and are just used to decrease the shutter speed or allow a wider aperture to be used.
 
shooter said:
I've only taken a few waterfall shots so i'm not 100% on the way most people do it but i find as andy said if there's not much sky involved i'd just stick to the polariser, it works for me but again it depends on the circumstances and what kind of shot your after.
If it's a fairly dark environment you can leave both off and get the milky water with shutter speed again as andy pointed out.
Click to expand...
I look at other waterfall shots and they have little or no glare from surface water I was assuming this was achieved using the polarising filter.

The ND filter would allow me to use a long shutter speed to get the milky effect. At least that's my logic. Maybe just a polarising filter will do the job.
 
Quaker said:
I look at other waterfall shots and they have little or no glare from surface water I was assuming this was achieved using the polarising filter.

The ND filter would allow me to use a long shutter speed to get the milky effect. At least that's my logic. Maybe just a polarising filter will do the job.
Click to expand...

Any device that gives a longish shutter speed will do the trick. Waterfalls and fountains often have quite fast water so you don't need too long a speed - 1/8sec may well be enough, and you can sometimes get that just by using a high f/number and low ISO if it's a dull day.

Some people just use a polariser to help things along, mainly because they normally lose you about two stops. You may or may not want it to get rid of reflections which make water look like water. An ND filter will obvioulsy lose you more light for a really long speed - good for bluring clouds and waves.
 
HoppyUK said:
Any device that gives a longish shutter speed will do the trick. Waterfalls and fountains often have quite fast water so you don't need too long a speed - 1/8sec may well be enough, and you can sometimes get that just by using a high f/number and low ISO if it's a dull day.

Some people just use a polariser to help things along, mainly because they normally lose you about two stops. You may or may not want it to get rid of reflections which make water look like water. An ND filter will obvioulsy lose you more light for a really long speed - good for bluring clouds and waves.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that much appreciated
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top